There is a post regarding Prof. John Turley saying Sessions made the right move, by appointing Independent Council who has been working on investigating the FBI for 5 months already. He has 470 investigators. He can prosecute. Turley goes on to say this helps Trump, since results could be revealed faster. The left must distract by using orchestrated propaganda against the 2nd Amend. The media will work their side up, into a frenzy for mid-term elections.
I posted this on another thread [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3644041/posts?page=5#5] this morning ........
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andrew McCarthy made the case for exactly what Sessions is doing in an article in early March. The way he lays it out, it makes a lot of sense .... no out-of-control special prosecutor ranging far afield, blowing millions, having to hire a team & get up to speed, then feeling like they have to get somebody on something to justify the appointment.
No New Special Counsel
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/second-special-counsel-fisa-not-necessary/
Link excerpt:
Clearly, there needs to be an investigation. Goodlatte and Gowdy are entirely right about that. Regardless of whether there is a solid basis for a criminal investigation, the Justice Department is always responsible for ensuring the integrity and lawfulness of its own operations — it must investigate credible allegations of misconduct by its component agencies, including the FBI. Goodlatte and Gowdy are also right to suggest (as I believe they have) that the contemplated investigation should scrutinize the handling of the Clinton-emails probe — how it comported, or failed to, with Justice Department practices and policies. The chairmen are right yet again that the jurisdictional limitations on Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s very able inspector general, make it impossible for him to conduct the investigation that is needed.
Neither, however, should that investigation be conducted by a special counsel.
The special counsel is a pernicious institution that operates outside the procedures and discipline of a normal U.S. attorney’s office — where the merits of every case must be weighed against those of every other in the competition for limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. Special-counsel appointments should be resisted whenever possible. Indeed, with Robert Mueller already — and inevitably — straying far afield from his original “collusion” inquiry, we should be discussing how that investigation can be limited and brought to a just conclusion; we should not be encouraging the launch of yet another special-counsel extravaganza. Never again should a special-counsel investigation be commenced in the absence of concrete evidence that a crime has been committed — a crime that serves to cabin the special counsel’s investigation lest it become a fishing expedition without end.
Here is what should be done. Attorney General Sessions should assign a U.S. attorney from outside Washington to conduct a probe of how the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia investigations were handled by the Justice Department and FBI.
Under my proposal, the designated U.S. attorney would handle this investigation along with the rest of the work of his or her office — this would not be a prosecutor whose only assignment is to pursue a single target or set of targets, and who thus faces great pressure to file charges, no matter how far afield from the original focus of the investigation, in order to justify the appointment. Unlike the inspector general, the U.S. attorney would have full jurisdiction to convene a grand jury; investigate any crimes attendant to the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia probes; issue subpoenas and seek other court process (such as search warrants) to secure evidence; and prosecute any violations of law by persons inside or outside of government.